Welcome to the cloud and service catalog blog. This blog and its LinkedIn communityare dedicated to the creation, sharing and distribution of cloud management and service Catalog best practices, ideas and trends

Service Catalog Community

stats

musings

I spend a fair amount of time presenting our cloud vision and technology to our customers. In thes conversations, we often end up talking about transformation and the people and process angle of this transformation. Sometimes I feel my role is that of a Cloud Pyschiatrist, and not a technologist.

Often he conversations turns towards managing the fear of change, the anger that other people don't get it, the exasperation with customers that demand impossible service levels, don't pay and yet are not smart to know they need help.

And the myriad of policy changes needed: Is a patch a change and does it need to go to the CAB? (yes,no). Why is that user running his CPU at 100%? Is that other user even looking at box, because it's running at 3%? Will we run out of capacity if provide self-service?

What about security? What about security? Is it insecure?

And so goes another day at the Cloud Psychiatrist's office. Change is hard. That cheese ain't going to move itself. So a healthy dialog about change is required. And that's something, we can help with.

And remember, anxiety about change is normal. Be a cheese mover, not a cheese chaser. Because that cheese ain't gonna move itself

After seeing a number of these promising beginnings turn into stalled launches, my friend concluded that some kind of organizational anxiety was preventing them from taking concrete steps. He believes a "defogging" service designed to help IT organizations clearly understand their options would help them move forward with confidence.

His experience mirrors my firm's. At speaking engagements, I interact with people who are intellectually convinced that aggressively moving toward cloud computing is necessary, but seem hesitant and even confused about what to do

My colleagues at newScale like a bit of fun and created a newscale YouTube channel.
If you'd like the lighter side of service catalogs. Or if you are trying to figure out, do I use Excel or a newscale tool? What's the difference?

These hilarious videos will provide comfort and laughter and education. Mostly laughter. Enjoy

My colleagues at newScale like a bit of fun and created a newscale YouTube channel.
If you'd like the lighter side of service catalogs. Or if you are trying to figure out, do I use Excel or a newscale tool? What's the difference?

These hilarious videos will provide comfort and laughter and education. Mostly laughter. Enjoy

My colleagues at newScale like a bit of fun and created a newscale YouTube channel.
If you'd like the lighter side of service catalogs. Or if you are trying to figure out, do I use Excel or a newscale tool? What's the difference?

These hilarious videos will provide comfort and laughter and education. Mostly laughter. Enjoy

We've talked a lot of the different views of the service catalog. So let's take a real life example to these views with food examples. I've prepared four questions and examples. Please let me know which one you think is the one closest to your project. Feel free to use it with attribution; at the end take a moment for a one-click poll.

Which is your service catalog?

An Inventory of your (IT) Refrigerator and its technical specs?

Is your service catalog an inventory of apps and technical devices? Are measure microwave availability? Are offering what's in the fridge, not what a customer wants to buy?

Are spending a lot of time doing tables like this one below from Lowes?

Color:

Stainless

Capacity (Cu. Ft.):

25.5

Flush / Built-In Look:

No

Ice Maker:

Yes

Water Dispenser:

Yes

Water Filtration:

Yes

Defrost Type:

Frost-Free

Dual Cooling:

Yes

Fresh Food Shelves:

4

Door Shelves:

3

Freezer Shelves:

2

Freezer Baskets/Bins:

4

Custom Door Kit Compatible:

No

Is our service catalog a listing of costs?

The picture comes from Restaurant ResourceGroup. I picked it because it's another way of looking at a catalog. And economically speaking, food service and IT service are both classified as part of the "service economy."

"This article is ....
intended to explain the importance of taking accurate and timely
physical counts of your food and beverage inventories and to show
you how to make a series of simple QuickBooks
accounting entries (or any other accounting software program that
you use) to insure
accurate food and beverage
cost reporting for your critical Profit and Loss Statements."

Kind of like what we try to do in IT.

A recipe?

Are we trying to document the process and resources necessary to deliver the service? Like this:

Fill a 6-quart kettle three fourths full with salted water and bring to
a boil. Plunge lobster headfirst into water and cook, covered, over
high heat 8 minutes. Transfer lobster with tongs to a large bowl and in
a measuring cup reserve 2 cups cooking liquid. Let lobster stand until
cool enough to handle. Working over a bowl to catch the juices, twist
off tail and claws and reserve juices. Reserve tomalley and discard
head sacs and any roe. Remove meat from claws and tail, reserving
shells and lobster body. (Lobster meat will not be cooked through.)
Coarsely chop meat and transfer to a bowl. Chill lobster meat, covered.

(See the rest at Epicurious)

You'll notice that as thoroughly as the recipe is documented, it assumes know-how, tools, and a context (home cooking, rather than party).

A (delicious) outcome and experience?

Now try this description of the service.

...Aria serves Classical
French cuisine with hints of Italian influences. Skip right into your
meal with a red wine scented Lobster Bisque ($15) whose rich, creamy
taste will have your tongue reeling in sheer delight. Served alongside,
are two crispy blue prawns done in fueille de brick style which complements the smooth bisque with its freshness, very well indeed.

The staff at Aria is well-trained to make you feel pampered with their
manners, attentiveness and enthusiasm. Bread and butter is swiftly
served upon your arrival and your glass of ice water is always refilled
to the brim. Lunchtime sees a sizeable crowd in the modest premise of
Aria but the staff is always on hand to offer more bread or water.
Patrons can also request for wine recommendations – the knowledgeable
staff will help you find a complementary Chardonnay or dessert wine for
your meal at Aria.

I think I've made my point. So leave a comment and or click this poll.

Now I'm going to go make lobster bisque from scratch. My particular recipe adds a hint of Chile Pasilla for very mild heat and depth. Bathe the Chile Pasilla for 3-4 minutes in the broth, then remove. I'm looking forward to having my tongue reeling in sheer delight. That's an outcome I can believe in.

We've talked a lot of the different views of the service catalog. So let's take a real life example to these views with food examples. I've prepared four questions and examples. Please let me know which one you think is the one closest to your project. Feel free to use it with attribution; at the end take a moment for a one-click poll.

Which is your service catalog?

An Inventory of your (IT) Refrigerator and its technical specs?

Is your service catalog an inventory of apps and technical devices? Are measure microwave availability? Are offering what's in the fridge, not what a customer wants to buy?

Are spending a lot of time doing tables like this one below from Lowes?

Color:

Stainless

Capacity (Cu. Ft.):

25.5

Flush / Built-In Look:

No

Ice Maker:

Yes

Water Dispenser:

Yes

Water Filtration:

Yes

Defrost Type:

Frost-Free

Dual Cooling:

Yes

Fresh Food Shelves:

4

Door Shelves:

3

Freezer Shelves:

2

Freezer Baskets/Bins:

4

Custom Door Kit Compatible:

No

Is our service catalog a listing of costs?

The picture comes from Restaurant ResourceGroup. I picked it because it's another way of looking at a catalog. And economically speaking, food service and IT service are both classified as part of the "service economy."

"This article is ....
intended to explain the importance of taking accurate and timely
physical counts of your food and beverage inventories and to show
you how to make a series of simple QuickBooks
accounting entries (or any other accounting software program that
you use) to insure
accurate food and beverage
cost reporting for your critical Profit and Loss Statements."

Kind of like what we try to do in IT.

A recipe?

Are we trying to document the process and resources necessary to deliver the service? Like this:

Fill a 6-quart kettle three fourths full with salted water and bring to
a boil. Plunge lobster headfirst into water and cook, covered, over
high heat 8 minutes. Transfer lobster with tongs to a large bowl and in
a measuring cup reserve 2 cups cooking liquid. Let lobster stand until
cool enough to handle. Working over a bowl to catch the juices, twist
off tail and claws and reserve juices. Reserve tomalley and discard
head sacs and any roe. Remove meat from claws and tail, reserving
shells and lobster body. (Lobster meat will not be cooked through.)
Coarsely chop meat and transfer to a bowl. Chill lobster meat, covered.

(See the rest at Epicurious)

You'll notice that as thoroughly as the recipe is documented, it assumes know-how, tools, and a context (home cooking, rather than party).

A (delicious) outcome and experience?

Now try this description of the service.

...Aria serves Classical
French cuisine with hints of Italian influences. Skip right into your
meal with a red wine scented Lobster Bisque ($15) whose rich, creamy
taste will have your tongue reeling in sheer delight. Served alongside,
are two crispy blue prawns done in fueille de brick style which complements the smooth bisque with its freshness, very well indeed.

The staff at Aria is well-trained to make you feel pampered with their
manners, attentiveness and enthusiasm. Bread and butter is swiftly
served upon your arrival and your glass of ice water is always refilled
to the brim. Lunchtime sees a sizeable crowd in the modest premise of
Aria but the staff is always on hand to offer more bread or water.
Patrons can also request for wine recommendations – the knowledgeable
staff will help you find a complementary Chardonnay or dessert wine for
your meal at Aria.

I think I've made my point. So leave a comment and or click this poll.

Now I'm going to go make lobster bisque from scratch. My particular recipe adds a hint of Chile Pasilla for very mild heat and depth. Bathe the Chile Pasilla for 3-4 minutes in the broth, then remove. I'm looking forward to having my tongue reeling in sheer delight. That's an outcome I can believe in.

We've talked a lot of the different views of the service catalog. So let's take a real life example to these views with food examples. I've prepared four questions and examples. Please let me know which one you think is the one closest to your project. Feel free to use it with attribution; at the end take a moment for a one-click poll.

Which is your service catalog?

An Inventory of your (IT) Refrigerator and its technical specs?

Is your service catalog an inventory of apps and technical devices? Are measure microwave availability? Are offering what's in the fridge, not what a customer wants to buy?

Are spending a lot of time doing tables like this one below from Lowes?

Color:

Stainless

Capacity (Cu. Ft.):

25.5

Flush / Built-In Look:

No

Ice Maker:

Yes

Water Dispenser:

Yes

Water Filtration:

Yes

Defrost Type:

Frost-Free

Dual Cooling:

Yes

Fresh Food Shelves:

4

Door Shelves:

3

Freezer Shelves:

2

Freezer Baskets/Bins:

4

Custom Door Kit Compatible:

No

Is our service catalog a listing of costs?

The picture comes from Restaurant ResourceGroup. I picked it because it's another way of looking at a catalog. And economically speaking, food service and IT service are both classified as part of the "service economy."

"This article is ....
intended to explain the importance of taking accurate and timely
physical counts of your food and beverage inventories and to show
you how to make a series of simple QuickBooks
accounting entries (or any other accounting software program that
you use) to insure
accurate food and beverage
cost reporting for your critical Profit and Loss Statements."

Kind of like what we try to do in IT.

A recipe?

Are we trying to document the process and resources necessary to deliver the service? Like this:

Fill a 6-quart kettle three fourths full with salted water and bring to
a boil. Plunge lobster headfirst into water and cook, covered, over
high heat 8 minutes. Transfer lobster with tongs to a large bowl and in
a measuring cup reserve 2 cups cooking liquid. Let lobster stand until
cool enough to handle. Working over a bowl to catch the juices, twist
off tail and claws and reserve juices. Reserve tomalley and discard
head sacs and any roe. Remove meat from claws and tail, reserving
shells and lobster body. (Lobster meat will not be cooked through.)
Coarsely chop meat and transfer to a bowl. Chill lobster meat, covered.

(See the rest at Epicurious)

You'll notice that as thoroughly as the recipe is documented, it assumes know-how, tools, and a context (home cooking, rather than party).

A (delicious) outcome and experience?

Now try this description of the service.

...Aria serves Classical
French cuisine with hints of Italian influences. Skip right into your
meal with a red wine scented Lobster Bisque ($15) whose rich, creamy
taste will have your tongue reeling in sheer delight. Served alongside,
are two crispy blue prawns done in fueille de brick style which complements the smooth bisque with its freshness, very well indeed.

The staff at Aria is well-trained to make you feel pampered with their
manners, attentiveness and enthusiasm. Bread and butter is swiftly
served upon your arrival and your glass of ice water is always refilled
to the brim. Lunchtime sees a sizeable crowd in the modest premise of
Aria but the staff is always on hand to offer more bread or water.
Patrons can also request for wine recommendations – the knowledgeable
staff will help you find a complementary Chardonnay or dessert wine for
your meal at Aria.

I think I've made my point. So leave a comment and or click this poll.

Now I'm going to go make lobster bisque from scratch. My particular recipe adds a hint of Chile Pasilla for very mild heat and depth. Bathe the Chile Pasilla for 3-4 minutes in the broth, then remove. I'm looking forward to having my tongue reeling in sheer delight. That's an outcome I can believe in.

As I've been watching the market meltdown, a question popped into my head: What's IT worth?How do we value these capabilities?

If the answer is zero and IT doesn't have any value outside of the operations they support, then... time to think about how we are going to react to this economic situation.

For starters, I'd want to have a more componentized IT so I can orderly and quickly shutdown unnecessary or unprofitable operations, sell what it's not core or outsource parts of it. I don't have time for a 3 year CMDB project.

I'd want an inventory of technology and people that assigns all costs to specific business services, with levers for risk, service level and consumption. All those levers are going to be pulled. I'd want to have alternatives to convert assets into variable consumption expenses -- let vendors deal with risk. And then use by service catalog to control consumption.

As I've been watching the market meltdown, a question popped into my head: What's IT worth?How do we value these capabilities?

If the answer is zero and IT doesn't have any value outside of the operations they support, then... time to think about how we are going to react to this economic situation.

For starters, I'd want to have a more componentized IT so I can orderly and quickly shutdown unnecessary or unprofitable operations, sell what it's not core or outsource parts of it. I don't have time for a 3 year CMDB project.

I'd want an inventory of technology and people that assigns all costs to specific business services, with levers for risk, service level and consumption. All those levers are going to be pulled. I'd want to have alternatives to convert assets into variable consumption expenses -- let vendors deal with risk. And then use by service catalog to control consumption.

As I've been watching the market meltdown, a question popped into my head: What's IT worth?How do we value these capabilities?

If the answer is zero and IT doesn't have any value outside of the operations they support, then... time to think about how we are going to react to this economic situation.

For starters, I'd want to have a more componentized IT so I can orderly and quickly shutdown unnecessary or unprofitable operations, sell what it's not core or outsource parts of it. I don't have time for a 3 year CMDB project.

I'd want an inventory of technology and people that assigns all costs to specific business services, with levers for risk, service level and consumption. All those levers are going to be pulled. I'd want to have alternatives to convert assets into variable consumption expenses -- let vendors deal with risk. And then use by service catalog to control consumption.

There were a lot great sessions on service catalogs at ITSMF Fusion last week, but a couple bothered me.

One, by a vendor who shall remain nameless, was just plain wrong. Self-service is cool, but it's not a complete ITIL v3 catalog or portfolio. The recommendations on running a project are unlikely to work, their approach is more like to result in lack of adoption.

So while I'm happy about the buzz, it's now buyer beware. But that's just difference of opinions. The other one is more serious...

The other session, by a consultant, used material directly from our catalog book, diagrams, and even product screenshots from newScale products without attribution or copyright notices. Worse, they represent another vendor -- so if you listen to their best practices and see their catalog example, you might think a) this vendor knows how to get me there, b) that's what my catalog from that VENDOR will look like. Neither of those things is true.

While I'm happy to share stuff (and we have a whole community on-line for this purpose), it's generally advisable to attribute other people's work and never pass someone's else's product as your own.

So I'm left with a riddle: should I call them out on this blog? Your thoughts would be welcome.

There were a lot great sessions on service catalogs at ITSMF Fusion last week, but a couple bothered me.

One, by a vendor who shall remain nameless, was just plain wrong. Self-service is cool, but it's not a complete ITIL v3 catalog or portfolio. The recommendations on running a project are unlikely to work, their approach is more like to result in lack of adoption.

So while I'm happy about the buzz, it's now buyer beware. But that's just difference of opinions. The other one is more serious...

The other session, by a consultant, used material directly from our catalog book, diagrams, and even product screenshots from newScale products without attribution or copyright notices. Worse, they represent another vendor -- so if you listen to their best practices and see their catalog example, you might think a) this vendor knows how to get me there, b) that's what my catalog from that VENDOR will look like. Neither of those things is true.

While I'm happy to share stuff (and we have a whole community on-line for this purpose), it's generally advisable to attribute other people's work and never pass someone's else's product as your own.

So I'm left with a riddle: should I call them out on this blog? Your thoughts would be welcome.

There were a lot great sessions on service catalogs at ITSMF Fusion last week, but a couple bothered me.

One, by a vendor who shall remain nameless, was just plain wrong. Self-service is cool, but it's not a complete ITIL v3 catalog or portfolio. The recommendations on running a project are unlikely to work, their approach is more like to result in lack of adoption.

So while I'm happy about the buzz, it's now buyer beware. But that's just difference of opinions. The other one is more serious...

The other session, by a consultant, used material directly from our catalog book, diagrams, and even product screenshots from newScale products without attribution or copyright notices. Worse, they represent another vendor -- so if you listen to their best practices and see their catalog example, you might think a) this vendor knows how to get me there, b) that's what my catalog from that VENDOR will look like. Neither of those things is true.

While I'm happy to share stuff (and we have a whole community on-line for this purpose), it's generally advisable to attribute other people's work and never pass someone's else's product as your own.

So I'm left with a riddle: should I call them out on this blog? Your thoughts would be welcome.

At the just completed ITSM Fusion there were a total of 11 sessions on IT Service Catalog (7) or ITS Service Portfolio (4) versus five (5) sessions on CMDB. And one of those CMDB sessions was about the service catalog as well.

Hank Marquis of EMA told me that he did a count of booths mentioning Service Catalog vs. CMDB: 65% for Service Catalog versus 35%.

So the service catalog topic is hot, hot , HOT. On the other hand, what people think they need to do about is still confused.

At the just completed ITSM Fusion there were a total of 11 sessions on IT Service Catalog (7) or ITS Service Portfolio (4) versus five (5) sessions on CMDB. And one of those CMDB sessions was about the service catalog as well.

Hank Marquis of EMA told me that he did a count of booths mentioning Service Catalog vs. CMDB: 65% for Service Catalog versus 35%.

So the service catalog topic is hot, hot , HOT. On the other hand, what people think they need to do about is still confused.

At the just completed ITSM Fusion there were a total of 11 sessions on IT Service Catalog (7) or ITS Service Portfolio (4) versus five (5) sessions on CMDB. And one of those CMDB sessions was about the service catalog as well.

Hank Marquis of EMA told me that he did a count of booths mentioning Service Catalog vs. CMDB: 65% for Service Catalog versus 35%.

So the service catalog topic is hot, hot , HOT. On the other hand, what people think they need to do about is still confused.

Neat article. Tough to follow the recommendation, but there's some goodness in doing so.In a nutshell, senior management has a bunch of metrics they care about and which are external -- explaining the impact of IT services to those metrics helps communicate value. Read on...

IT
traditionally does not “speak business”, and often falls back to
techno-babble instead and the ever-present use of “9’s” to describe IT
value and performance. How can one make a business decision based on a
statement of uptime? A better way is to transform IT performance into
business impact, expressed as quantified risk. However, one can only
understand business impact by reaching outside the boundaries of the
enterprise and this is uncharted water for most IT managers.

Of primary concern to IT should be the performance of customer and user
assets (e.g., end-user, end-customer, enterprise product) because
without them there is no way to value a service. Without the context in
which the customer (or user) uses the service in support of enterprise
objectives it is difficult to define value. Thinking outside the box
means we have to understand transaction boundaries. HTML

Neat article. Tough to follow the recommendation, but there's some goodness in doing so.In a nutshell, senior management has a bunch of metrics they care about and which are external -- explaining the impact of IT services to those metrics helps communicate value. Read on...

IT
traditionally does not “speak business”, and often falls back to
techno-babble instead and the ever-present use of “9’s” to describe IT
value and performance. How can one make a business decision based on a
statement of uptime? A better way is to transform IT performance into
business impact, expressed as quantified risk. However, one can only
understand business impact by reaching outside the boundaries of the
enterprise and this is uncharted water for most IT managers.

Of primary concern to IT should be the performance of customer and user
assets (e.g., end-user, end-customer, enterprise product) because
without them there is no way to value a service. Without the context in
which the customer (or user) uses the service in support of enterprise
objectives it is difficult to define value. Thinking outside the box
means we have to understand transaction boundaries. HTML

Neat article. Tough to follow the recommendation, but there's some goodness in doing so.In a nutshell, senior management has a bunch of metrics they care about and which are external -- explaining the impact of IT services to those metrics helps communicate value. Read on...

IT
traditionally does not “speak business”, and often falls back to
techno-babble instead and the ever-present use of “9’s” to describe IT
value and performance. How can one make a business decision based on a
statement of uptime? A better way is to transform IT performance into
business impact, expressed as quantified risk. However, one can only
understand business impact by reaching outside the boundaries of the
enterprise and this is uncharted water for most IT managers.

Of primary concern to IT should be the performance of customer and user
assets (e.g., end-user, end-customer, enterprise product) because
without them there is no way to value a service. Without the context in
which the customer (or user) uses the service in support of enterprise
objectives it is difficult to define value. Thinking outside the box
means we have to understand transaction boundaries. HTML

This is an interesting article about HP's struggle with data center consolidation. Originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

There were two issues, according to the WSJ article: Mis-understanding of how many "applications" there were, and political resistance to let go of the application. The article then entails the huge fight, etc. My take away? There's something missing. Read the quotes below and I'll make my case after.

Knowing how many applications are in the data center is probably a good step toward determining how many you plan to eliminate. That was one of the problems HP dealt with in trying to consolidate 85 data centers scattered across the globe down to six.

According to a Wall Street Journal article today, HP CIO Randy Mott discovered that company employees relied on about 6,000 applications, almost twice as many as he thought.

When he found out, it was early 2006 and HP was already months into the project.
“I was blindsided,” Mott told the Journal.
What’s more — and this is no surprise — people were clinging to their applications as if this was a life-or-death matter.

That especially became a problem at HP with employees of higher standing than Mott.

In H-P’s case, obstacles surfaced as early as December 2005. At the time, several vice presidents “really dug in” and resisted, says Mr. Mott. Some units said, “‘We’re not going to give you a cost-benefit analysis (for why we use the IT we have). We’re just going to tell you what product we want,’ ” the chief information officer says.

Mr. Mott faces an uphill challenge. HP's culture is one that traditionally has been very difficult to herd. They value individuality -- with all the positive and negative implications that has. According to the article "H-P spent $4.2 billion -- about 5% of 2005 revenue -- to maintain its
IT systems; he wants that to drop to 2% by the end of this year" That's a pretty meaningful number. Remember that HP makes most of its profits from ink cartridges. It loses money or breaks even on software and hardware.

The WSJ story emphasizes the huge conflict that ensued, and how the board of directors had to get involved. Makes for a good yarn, but a poor model for the rest of us.

My interpretation of the core obstacles which the article doesn't mention:

Lack of a common language to engage business leaders
about the service provided. As a result, the business leaders HAVE to own their own applications because that gives them control. This is the main reason for their resistance to change.

Inventorying applications without understanding business
processes, business services or functions leads to an explosion of “applications." Is it a business service? Is it a technical service? Is it supporting a function? How does the function relate to the business process? I bet nothing like this was answered; this is why the business resists.

Focused on the overall company objective, but compensation is not. Read this quote "More companies are trying to save energy and maintenance costs by
consolidating large numbers of old computers and moving to new data
centers that use less space and power." Seems like a great thing, but P&L executives are paid for top line revenue. So unless you have a charge back model where those benefits accrue to the business units, why would they give up control and benefits?

No trusted way to define services and levels that map
business function metrics to IT infrastructure.This means that the business may be using a specific version to deal with a specific local condition, but corporate IT does not understand it. This is one I see all the time at global companies.

IT doesn’t engage in understanding business process. So they have no idea in what the change means to the business. Last week I was with an executive in charge of processes, he said "in this country for this territory we need to deliver quotes in 2 minutes. In other areas we don't. The IT guys don't understand we need to support these variances." Fair or unfair, this is how he sees it and he has the ear of the CEO and board.

No structured way to separate technology from services. Maybe the buiness function can remain the same, the business process too. The only thing that we will change is the app server or hardware. But without a good hierarchy, service offering definitions, service levels options, or unit costs tied to business process metrics the business has no way of understanding what the changes mean.Ergo: resistance

In summary, without service portfolio management the only thing left is to fight about
application and who controls them. This is the HP story. It's unlikely to work as a model for the rest of us. Mr. Mott is a legendary CIO; we are mere mortals.

We better start the dialogue with the business using a Service Portfolio approach.

This is an interesting article about HP's struggle with data center consolidation. Originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

There were two issues, according to the WSJ article: Mis-understanding of how many "applications" there were, and political resistance to let go of the application. The article then entails the huge fight, etc. My take away? There's something missing. Read the quotes below and I'll make my case after.

Knowing how many applications are in the data center is probably a good step toward determining how many you plan to eliminate. That was one of the problems HP dealt with in trying to consolidate 85 data centers scattered across the globe down to six.

According to a Wall Street Journal article today, HP CIO Randy Mott discovered that company employees relied on about 6,000 applications, almost twice as many as he thought.

When he found out, it was early 2006 and HP was already months into the project.
“I was blindsided,” Mott told the Journal.
What’s more — and this is no surprise — people were clinging to their applications as if this was a life-or-death matter.

That especially became a problem at HP with employees of higher standing than Mott.

In H-P’s case, obstacles surfaced as early as December 2005. At the time, several vice presidents “really dug in” and resisted, says Mr. Mott. Some units said, “‘We’re not going to give you a cost-benefit analysis (for why we use the IT we have). We’re just going to tell you what product we want,’ ” the chief information officer says.

Mr. Mott faces an uphill challenge. HP's culture is one that traditionally has been very difficult to herd. They value individuality -- with all the positive and negative implications that has. According to the article "H-P spent $4.2 billion -- about 5% of 2005 revenue -- to maintain its
IT systems; he wants that to drop to 2% by the end of this year" That's a pretty meaningful number. Remember that HP makes most of its profits from ink cartridges. It loses money or breaks even on software and hardware.

The WSJ story emphasizes the huge conflict that ensued, and how the board of directors had to get involved. Makes for a good yarn, but a poor model for the rest of us.

My interpretation of the core obstacles which the article doesn't mention:

Lack of a common language to engage business leaders
about the service provided. As a result, the business leaders HAVE to own their own applications because that gives them control. This is the main reason for their resistance to change.

Inventorying applications without understanding business
processes, business services or functions leads to an explosion of “applications." Is it a business service? Is it a technical service? Is it supporting a function? How does the function relate to the business process? I bet nothing like this was answered; this is why the business resists.

Focused on the overall company objective, but compensation is not. Read this quote "More companies are trying to save energy and maintenance costs by
consolidating large numbers of old computers and moving to new data
centers that use less space and power." Seems like a great thing, but P&L executives are paid for top line revenue. So unless you have a charge back model where those benefits accrue to the business units, why would they give up control and benefits?

No trusted way to define services and levels that map
business function metrics to IT infrastructure.This means that the business may be using a specific version to deal with a specific local condition, but corporate IT does not understand it. This is one I see all the time at global companies.

IT doesn’t engage in understanding business process. So they have no idea in what the change means to the business. Last week I was with an executive in charge of processes, he said "in this country for this territory we need to deliver quotes in 2 minutes. In other areas we don't. The IT guys don't understand we need to support these variances." Fair or unfair, this is how he sees it and he has the ear of the CEO and board.

No structured way to separate technology from services. Maybe the buiness function can remain the same, the business process too. The only thing that we will change is the app server or hardware. But without a good hierarchy, service offering definitions, service levels options, or unit costs tied to business process metrics the business has no way of understanding what the changes mean.Ergo: resistance

In summary, without service portfolio management the only thing left is to fight about
application and who controls them. This is the HP story. It's unlikely to work as a model for the rest of us. Mr. Mott is a legendary CIO; we are mere mortals.

We better start the dialogue with the business using a Service Portfolio approach.

This is an interesting article about HP's struggle with data center consolidation. Originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

There were two issues, according to the WSJ article: Mis-understanding of how many "applications" there were, and political resistance to let go of the application. The article then entails the huge fight, etc. My take away? There's something missing. Read the quotes below and I'll make my case after.

Knowing how many applications are in the data center is probably a good step toward determining how many you plan to eliminate. That was one of the problems HP dealt with in trying to consolidate 85 data centers scattered across the globe down to six.

According to a Wall Street Journal article today, HP CIO Randy Mott discovered that company employees relied on about 6,000 applications, almost twice as many as he thought.

When he found out, it was early 2006 and HP was already months into the project.
“I was blindsided,” Mott told the Journal.
What’s more — and this is no surprise — people were clinging to their applications as if this was a life-or-death matter.

That especially became a problem at HP with employees of higher standing than Mott.

In H-P’s case, obstacles surfaced as early as December 2005. At the time, several vice presidents “really dug in” and resisted, says Mr. Mott. Some units said, “‘We’re not going to give you a cost-benefit analysis (for why we use the IT we have). We’re just going to tell you what product we want,’ ” the chief information officer says.

Mr. Mott faces an uphill challenge. HP's culture is one that traditionally has been very difficult to herd. They value individuality -- with all the positive and negative implications that has. According to the article "H-P spent $4.2 billion -- about 5% of 2005 revenue -- to maintain its
IT systems; he wants that to drop to 2% by the end of this year" That's a pretty meaningful number. Remember that HP makes most of its profits from ink cartridges. It loses money or breaks even on software and hardware.

The WSJ story emphasizes the huge conflict that ensued, and how the board of directors had to get involved. Makes for a good yarn, but a poor model for the rest of us.

My interpretation of the core obstacles which the article doesn't mention:

Lack of a common language to engage business leaders
about the service provided. As a result, the business leaders HAVE to own their own applications because that gives them control. This is the main reason for their resistance to change.

Inventorying applications without understanding business
processes, business services or functions leads to an explosion of “applications." Is it a business service? Is it a technical service? Is it supporting a function? How does the function relate to the business process? I bet nothing like this was answered; this is why the business resists.

Focused on the overall company objective, but compensation is not. Read this quote "More companies are trying to save energy and maintenance costs by
consolidating large numbers of old computers and moving to new data
centers that use less space and power." Seems like a great thing, but P&L executives are paid for top line revenue. So unless you have a charge back model where those benefits accrue to the business units, why would they give up control and benefits?

No trusted way to define services and levels that map
business function metrics to IT infrastructure.This means that the business may be using a specific version to deal with a specific local condition, but corporate IT does not understand it. This is one I see all the time at global companies.

IT doesn’t engage in understanding business process. So they have no idea in what the change means to the business. Last week I was with an executive in charge of processes, he said "in this country for this territory we need to deliver quotes in 2 minutes. In other areas we don't. The IT guys don't understand we need to support these variances." Fair or unfair, this is how he sees it and he has the ear of the CEO and board.

No structured way to separate technology from services. Maybe the buiness function can remain the same, the business process too. The only thing that we will change is the app server or hardware. But without a good hierarchy, service offering definitions, service levels options, or unit costs tied to business process metrics the business has no way of understanding what the changes mean.Ergo: resistance

In summary, without service portfolio management the only thing left is to fight about
application and who controls them. This is the HP story. It's unlikely to work as a model for the rest of us. Mr. Mott is a legendary CIO; we are mere mortals.

We better start the dialogue with the business using a Service Portfolio approach.

It's early, but Browser Storage Support is going to radically alter internet applications. The ability to cache local data will kill the last reason for desktop applications. So everything moves to the cloud but local storage will still be there. Except in the browser, not the OS.

As web applications became more popular there was a general demand
for an ability to run web-based applications offline. The first such
solutions that could work without requiring a browser plugin or
separate application were those that relied on the caching headers
within HTTP to store objects within the browsers cache. ,,,

In May of 2007, Google launched Google Gears,
a browser plugin that allows web applications to synchronize data into
a local data store and then allow web applications to function offline.
At the launch of Gears, Google Reader was adapted to support it, and
the emphasis of the pitch for Gears was about offline application
access. What was less known is that Gears is a lot more than just
offline access, as it provides three primary functions:

It's early, but Browser Storage Support is going to radically alter internet applications. The ability to cache local data will kill the last reason for desktop applications. So everything moves to the cloud but local storage will still be there. Except in the browser, not the OS.

As web applications became more popular there was a general demand
for an ability to run web-based applications offline. The first such
solutions that could work without requiring a browser plugin or
separate application were those that relied on the caching headers
within HTTP to store objects within the browsers cache. ,,,

In May of 2007, Google launched Google Gears,
a browser plugin that allows web applications to synchronize data into
a local data store and then allow web applications to function offline.
At the launch of Gears, Google Reader was adapted to support it, and
the emphasis of the pitch for Gears was about offline application
access. What was less known is that Gears is a lot more than just
offline access, as it provides three primary functions:

It's early, but Browser Storage Support is going to radically alter internet applications. The ability to cache local data will kill the last reason for desktop applications. So everything moves to the cloud but local storage will still be there. Except in the browser, not the OS.

As web applications became more popular there was a general demand
for an ability to run web-based applications offline. The first such
solutions that could work without requiring a browser plugin or
separate application were those that relied on the caching headers
within HTTP to store objects within the browsers cache. ,,,

In May of 2007, Google launched Google Gears,
a browser plugin that allows web applications to synchronize data into
a local data store and then allow web applications to function offline.
At the launch of Gears, Google Reader was adapted to support it, and
the emphasis of the pitch for Gears was about offline application
access. What was less known is that Gears is a lot more than just
offline access, as it provides three primary functions:

Stuck in the last row, middle seat, knees bumping on the front seat, over-sold and delayed plane, no food, funny smells (funny like.. never mind). In the middle of a way too long and unpleasant journey.

And I thought, "Hey, I'm American. I don't want the journey, I want to be tele-transported home now, damnit!"

Enjoy this Delta video about life and manners in the middle seat. (Although they could make the seats bigger, they publish this video trying to change our behavior. I'm but mildly amused)

This article is published in accordance with the rules of this blog that state: on Fridays, try to be funny.

Stuck in the last row, middle seat, knees bumping on the front seat, over-sold and delayed plane, no food, funny smells (funny like.. never mind). In the middle of a way too long and unpleasant journey.

And I thought, "Hey, I'm American. I don't want the journey, I want to be tele-transported home now, damnit!"

Enjoy this Delta video about life and manners in the middle seat. (Although they could make the seats bigger, they publish this video trying to change our behavior. I'm but mildly amused)

This article is published in accordance with the rules of this blog that state: on Fridays, try to be funny.

Stuck in the last row, middle seat, knees bumping on the front seat, over-sold and delayed plane, no food, funny smells (funny like.. never mind). In the middle of a way too long and unpleasant journey.

And I thought, "Hey, I'm American. I don't want the journey, I want to be tele-transported home now, damnit!"

Enjoy this Delta video about life and manners in the middle seat. (Although they could make the seats bigger, they publish this video trying to change our behavior. I'm but mildly amused)

This article is published in accordance with the rules of this blog that state: on Fridays, try to be funny.

SaaS (software as a service) is touted as the future of software. Why not have everything out in the cloud rather than running your own stuff? The argument goes, "after all, you don't run your own power plant, do you?" I think for a lot of mature market and technologies, Saas is a good way to go. But not for everything

Here's what happened.

Our Service Catalog community, ServiceCatalogs.com was built on the JotSpot wiki platform and hosted by them. Then Google acquired Jotspot. But Google has different plans for JotSpot, plans that don't include the old business model or technology.

Google has renamed JotSpot sites and downgraded functionality (no more forums), changed the model (only for Google Apps, not open communities), and got rid of the API (many features gone). Worse they'll shut down the servers we are on later his summer.

So without a clear or reasonable migration plan, and a clear deadline for shutdown, this means that we most likely have to migrate the community off the platform we are on (5,000 users) and move it to another technology or hosted service. Even if we stay with Google, it will be a whole new and downgraded platform.

This will cost us time and money are not budgeted, and all the customization code is now useless and our designs need to be changed. We are left in a spot of that famous creek without a jot of paddle. Doing nothing, an option when you run your own software in house, is not an option.

This is the dark side of Saas, one that ultimately companies like salesforce.com or servicenow will have to address. What happens if the provider gets acquired? What happens if you choose to change your business model /charging model? What happens if you deprecate functionality that I'm dependent on?

Saas proponents claim that it ends the upgrade cycle, as the service provider now upgrades the platform. This is what happened to us. But what's an upgrade to them, it's a downgrade to me. And the option of "I'll keep running the old code until I figure out what to do or my provider adds the needed functionality" is just not available in the SaaS model.

Think about it, how many of our companies are all up on the latest versions of everything we use? Not one. We are always behind the upgrade cycle and always running some stuff that is going out of support or has gone.

With SaaS, we no longer have that option. That's the dark side of Saas. I'm still a fan but now I would be more careful about the questions I'd want in the contract before I go to Saas.

SaaS (software as a service) is touted as the future of software. Why not have everything out in the cloud rather than running your own stuff? The argument goes, "after all, you don't run your own power plant, do you?" I think for a lot of mature market and technologies, Saas is a good way to go. But not for everything

Here's what happened.

Our Service Catalog community, ServiceCatalogs.com was built on the JotSpot wiki platform and hosted by them. Then Google acquired Jotspot. But Google has different plans for JotSpot, plans that don't include the old business model or technology.

Google has renamed JotSpot sites and downgraded functionality (no more forums), changed the model (only for Google Apps, not open communities), and got rid of the API (many features gone). Worse they'll shut down the servers we are on later his summer.

So without a clear or reasonable migration plan, and a clear deadline for shutdown, this means that we most likely have to migrate the community off the platform we are on (5,000 users) and move it to another technology or hosted service. Even if we stay with Google, it will be a whole new and downgraded platform.

This will cost us time and money are not budgeted, and all the customization code is now useless and our designs need to be changed. We are left in a spot of that famous creek without a jot of paddle. Doing nothing, an option when you run your own software in house, is not an option.

This is the dark side of Saas, one that ultimately companies like salesforce.com or servicenow will have to address. What happens if the provider gets acquired? What happens if you choose to change your business model /charging model? What happens if you deprecate functionality that I'm dependent on?

Saas proponents claim that it ends the upgrade cycle, as the service provider now upgrades the platform. This is what happened to us. But what's an upgrade to them, it's a downgrade to me. And the option of "I'll keep running the old code until I figure out what to do or my provider adds the needed functionality" is just not available in the SaaS model.

Think about it, how many of our companies are all up on the latest versions of everything we use? Not one. We are always behind the upgrade cycle and always running some stuff that is going out of support or has gone.

With SaaS, we no longer have that option. That's the dark side of Saas. I'm still a fan but now I would be more careful about the questions I'd want in the contract before I go to Saas.

SaaS (software as a service) is touted as the future of software. Why not have everything out in the cloud rather than running your own stuff? The argument goes, "after all, you don't run your own power plant, do you?" I think for a lot of mature market and technologies, Saas is a good way to go. But not for everything

Here's what happened.

Our Service Catalog community, ServiceCatalogs.com was built on the JotSpot wiki platform and hosted by them. Then Google acquired Jotspot. But Google has different plans for JotSpot, plans that don't include the old business model or technology.

Google has renamed JotSpot sites and downgraded functionality (no more forums), changed the model (only for Google Apps, not open communities), and got rid of the API (many features gone). Worse they'll shut down the servers we are on later his summer.

So without a clear or reasonable migration plan, and a clear deadline for shutdown, this means that we most likely have to migrate the community off the platform we are on (5,000 users) and move it to another technology or hosted service. Even if we stay with Google, it will be a whole new and downgraded platform.

This will cost us time and money are not budgeted, and all the customization code is now useless and our designs need to be changed. We are left in a spot of that famous creek without a jot of paddle. Doing nothing, an option when you run your own software in house, is not an option.

This is the dark side of Saas, one that ultimately companies like salesforce.com or servicenow will have to address. What happens if the provider gets acquired? What happens if you choose to change your business model /charging model? What happens if you deprecate functionality that I'm dependent on?

Saas proponents claim that it ends the upgrade cycle, as the service provider now upgrades the platform. This is what happened to us. But what's an upgrade to them, it's a downgrade to me. And the option of "I'll keep running the old code until I figure out what to do or my provider adds the needed functionality" is just not available in the SaaS model.

Think about it, how many of our companies are all up on the latest versions of everything we use? Not one. We are always behind the upgrade cycle and always running some stuff that is going out of support or has gone.

With SaaS, we no longer have that option. That's the dark side of Saas. I'm still a fan but now I would be more careful about the questions I'd want in the contract before I go to Saas.

I've been meaning to commemorate my 300th blog post. As usual, I'm behind. So instead, let's celebrate my 304th blog post. It's been 2 years of blogging about Service Catalogs and ITIL. There's a wealth of information in this blog. By the way, 304 posts averages about 1 post every 2 ½ days, excluding vacations and Christmas holidays.